CA Overturns Gay Marriage Ban!

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Agathon


That it provides public recognition of the special status of a relationship? Similarly, the law provides public recognition of the fact that one is a parent. I'm surprised that you'd see this as a business contract. The law recognizes that there is a special relationship in both cases, even though legal remedies might be the same as in some other forms of relationship.

It's a partnership. Yes, the state recognizes it. The state recognizes business partnerships too (which can be said to be "special relationships" as well, if we really want to argue about this...).

-Arrian

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Agathon
I don't agree with Ben about gay marriage or abortion. But he has a point that is worth thinking over. The liberal arguments for both rest on individual liberty.

Your argument is a "liberal" one.

(Simply pointing out the absurdity of pretending all liberal arguments for either are the same. Even in this thread that is not the case.)

Yet the same principles of individual liberty can be used to justify widespread discrimination against gay people, or the removal of child support laws.

You are pretending that individual liberty is the only concept of importance. Child support laws are about responsibility, which is a given with liberty. You can't have one without the other. Without responsibility, your liberty can be taken away by anyone with no consequence. Which is why to protect liberty, you must require responsibility as well.

You are also pretending like "rights", which most of the debate here is about, are the same thing as "individual liberty" which you imply all the "liberal" debate here is about. Your use of "individual liberty" seems to mean "do whatever the hell you want", which is not "rights" at all.

If we go back to see what you are talking about, "If it is voluntary and does not 'affect' others, then it is good" does not even apply to your examples. Discrimination against gay people obvious affects others. So does not paying child support.

[Arrian]

Look, this debate encompasses both the liberty argument *and* the benefit to society argument. It's not one to the exclusion of the other. They both have their place, and I think gay marriage passes both tests.

-Arrian

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Agathon


This is a ludicrous view. The conservatives are absolutely right that such a view devalues marriage. Marriage is a social institution and has life independently of the law. It is not the same as a business contract. I hope you aren't married.

What you are describing is a civil partnership. Sure, the state can have those alongside marriages, but they aren't the same. When homosexual activists claim that allowing homosexuals access to civil partnerships is discriminatory, they are absolutely right, because marriage has a distinct social status that a civil partnership does not.

Your theory would reduce the value of all marriages to civil partnerships, something no better than a business contract, and hardly anyone is going to buy that. Marriage legislation is not only about finance, but about public recognition of a certain kind of ideal relationship. The religious people are absolutely correct about that, but wrong to think that homosexuals can't have such relationships or that they are worthy of less public recognition than heterosexual marriages.

What I am describing is the state's interest in marriage. In a liberal society, the state must not have an interest beyond this. It is not the purpose of the state to recognize an 'ideal relationship'; that is what led to not permitting gay marriage in the first place - the conservative belief that it is not an ideal relationship. Any further element of marriage is a nice benefit, certainly, but it is not in the state's interest to care one way or the other about it, any more than it is in the state's interest to host balls or quincinieras.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by snoopy369


What I am describing is the state's interest in marriage. In a liberal society, the state must not have an interest beyond this. It is not the purpose of the state to recognize an 'ideal relationship'; that is what led to not permitting gay marriage in the first place - the conservative belief that it is not an ideal relationship. Any further element of marriage is a nice benefit, certainly, but it is not in the state's interest to care one way or the other about it, any more than it is in the state's interest to host balls or quincinieras.

Why not? The state protects lots of things people value, like religion. States host all sorts of public events. I'm puzzled as to what you mean.

Enough for today though. I wonder if this will pass 500 before I get back.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You're free to post any real evidence you have. You could also go for a hat trick and give me a real reason keeping in mind all the legal claims about gay marriage wrt to equal protection, why incest is illegal given the lack of scientific evidence to support the ban on at least 1st cousin pairings?

You're aware of the demise of the Hapsburgs, right, as a result of inbred genetic defects? That came from first cousin marriages, and not even all that many ...

I'm not a scientist, but those who I know who are strongly support the ban for genetic reasons. I'll stick with that, over some opinion piece from Slate...

The Ashkenazi are an ethnic group.

The ashkenazi are an ethnic and religious group, and either way they can bear the costs themselves if that is their desire

[Ming]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I'm not a scientist, but those who I know who are strongly support the ban for genetic reasons. I'll stick with that, over some opinion piece from Slate...

Genetic tests can be done early enough that if there is a problem, an abortion can be done. There is not a 100% chance that there will be problems. As it stands right now, there is no law that states that the sole test for allowing a marriage is the ability to have problem free children. Many people who will never have children are allowed to get married. Many people having genetic problem are still allowed to get married. Old people who can no longer have children are allowed to get married.
To use any of these arguments to ban some group while still allowing "normal" couples who are in the same position to continue to get married is hypocrisy.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Asher
Religion is such a scam. They make more people's lives miserable than they improve it. Whether it's keeping unhappy people together, repressing the self, or simply campaigning to legislate their values on people who don't share them...

I know you'll never understand this, but the idea of equal rights for homosexual is very Christian. It's not religion vs tolerance-atheism, it's two Christian sects against each other...

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Ming


Genetic tests can be done early enough that if there is a problem, an abortion can be done. There is not a 100% chance that there will be problems. As it stands right now, there is no law that states that the sole test for allowing a marriage is the ability to have problem free children. Many people who will never have children are allowed to get married. Many people having genetic problem are still allowed to get married. Old people who can no longer have children are allowed to get married.
To use any of these arguments to ban some group while still allowing "normal" couples who are in the same position to continue to get married is hypocrisy.

Again, there is a non-marriage route to financially taking care of family members - you can declare them a dependent. Hence marriage is inappropriate, and too likely to result in children to be permitted.

Children born of incestuous relationships are MUCH more likely to be genetically malformed - even according to Dinodoc's stats, nearly 2x as likely from a single first-cousin relationship, and that snowballs quite quickly - and this DOES have a cost to society. This is why it is significantly different from the other examples (homosexual, bigamy); there is a specific interest of the state in preventing the relationship, and NO benefit in permitting it.

Frankly i'd support genetic testing for marriage, but that's another story

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I'm not a scientist, but those who I know who are strongly support the ban for genetic reasons. I'll stick with that, over some opinion piece from Slate...

Perhaps you should look at the article and the links it contains?

The ashkenazi are an ethnic and religious group, and either way they can bear the costs themselves if that is their desire

Gotcha. Ethnic groups with a higher propensity for genetic diseases can't marry either now under your world view. Now that we have cleared out the Jews from marrying are there any other groups you would suggest?

[Ming]

While it is nearly 2x as likely, it is nowhere near 100%.
And again, with genetic testing, you can be 100% sure that there isn't a problem. So there would be no cost to society. And again, we allow couples with genetic disorders to get married now... so to use this as the sole basis for not allowing an incestious marriage is wrong. (as much as I find such relationships disturbing)

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Asher


It's just not real in the context of the discussion specific to gay marriage...

Sure it is. You redefine a word based upon rational considerations. Why is it only your redefinition we should take seriously?

As I said, it's a discussion to have, but lumping all of these different issues together just makes it far easier for bigots to group them together with the "slippery slope" arguments.

Agreed. Deal with it.

[Arrian]

Frankly i'd support genetic testing for marriage

Ah, the fascist tendencies surface again.

What is it with tying procreation to marriage so tightly? Yes, lots of marriages produce kids. Some do not. Also, many kids are produced outside of marriage. So genetic testing in order to get a marriage lisence, in addition to being a gross violation of individual rights, is just plain stupid.

-Arrian

[snoopy369]

I think people should know if their babies are likely to have defects You don't like that idea?

[Arrian]

Wait, are you saying testing should be mandatory, but that the results will have no impact on granting the license?

-Arrian